These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

EVE would get so many more subs IF...?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#161 - 2012-08-24 19:46:03 UTC
As much as people might herf derf about Eve being a hardcore PVP MMO, having more solo pve content would be beneficial for player retention.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#162 - 2012-08-24 19:49:26 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Tippia you and I damn well know that their interpretation of PvP was pewpew.
Yes, and if you want to be free of it, you have to restrict the activities that can be done under that aegis to anything left over from that list. Otherwise, you are unfairly interfering with the game.

If you want to do those things and not interfere with the intricate interdependencies of the EVE universe, I would suggest X³ instead.
Anslo
Scope Works
#163 - 2012-08-24 19:50:47 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Tippia you and I damn well know that their interpretation of PvP was pewpew.
Yes, and if you want to be free of it, you have to restrict the activities that can be done under that aegis to anything left over from that list. Otherwise, you are unfairly interfering with the game.

If you want to do those things and not interfere with the intricate interdependencies of the EVE universe, I would suggest X³ instead.


No. They want to play EVE and they want to play it their way. Don't tell them to go play something else you ****. You want specificity? Fine.

A Ship versus Ship Attacking Flag would be beneficial to those who do not want to engage in pewpew. There. Happy?

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#164 - 2012-08-24 19:52:35 UTC
Anslo wrote:


A Ship versus Ship Attacking Flag would be beneficial to those who do not want to engage in pewpew. There. Happy?


What would be beneficial to some would be detrimental the the entirety of Eve. Having a flag system in Eve would be the equivalent of Trammel in UO.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#165 - 2012-08-24 19:55:02 UTC
Anslo wrote:
No. They want to play EVE
Then they have to accept that either they are not allowed to interfere with the gameplay of others, or others will be allowed to interfere with their gameplay. Simple, huh?

If you are not allowed to be shot, then the protection this offers means that all those other activities must be prohibited as well. If you cannot figure out why, then you are not qualified to discuss PvP in EVE.
Josef Djugashvilis
#166 - 2012-08-24 19:55:13 UTC
To be brutally honest, Eve would get many more subscribers (for a while) if it was easier to understand and play.

Many of these new subscribers would soon get bored, then move on to the latest 'fad' game, and Eve, having lost those of us who like the game precisely because it is hard and ruthless, would die.

Once a game is financially viable/stable, player retention is the most important thing.

This is not a signature.
Anslo
Scope Works
#167 - 2012-08-24 19:59:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Anslo
Tippia wrote:
Anslo wrote:
No. They want to play EVE
Then they have to accept that either they are not allowed to interfere with the gameplay of others, or others will be allowed to interfere with their gameplay. Simple, huh?

If you are not allowed to be shot, then the protection this offers means that all those other activities must be prohibited as well. If you cannot figure out why, then you are not qualified to discuss PvP in EVE.


So it's either carebears can't interfere in ganker game play, and to accept that gankers can interfere with their gameplay. That's fair. So fair.

So basically you're a completely biased ****. Yeah it is simple. It makes me despise you even more.

And no, you're wrong. It's your opinion, but it's not everyone elses belief, plain and simple. So what if they don't wanna shoot? If they wanna mine, let them mine. If they wanna market, let them market. Build? Let them ******* build. They'll "pvp" and compete in their own way. THEY shouldn't have to have THEIR gamplay interfered with by THEM. Simple.

And I am qualified to talk about PvP, otherwise I wouldn't bother on the subject you ****. I see how PvE'ers get abused. I see the **** they have to deal with. Guess what? I think it's WRONG. THEY should be allowed to go about their business, not getting in anyone's way. So I'll talk about PvP all I want.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#168 - 2012-08-24 20:26:44 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
........My previous post.....


How then do you explain people like me, who come home from work and shoots npcs to relax, then logs on main, joins a roam and kills stuff?

Ive run across many who get The Rush to some degree who also like relaxing activities. What I have seen very little of are people who do not get it, or are made sick by it, who also enjoy participating in PvP combat. Ive heard of people do it to be part of the group, to help in times of trouble, and then afterwards go throw up from the stress. I do not think that is the game experience CCP is shooting for, or one that will draw in more players.

Remember the topic: What would get more subs? Saying "If you do not like it, go play something else" is the exact opposite of getting more subs.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#169 - 2012-08-24 20:31:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Anslo wrote:
So it's either carebears can't interfere in ganker game play, and to accept that gankers can interfere with their gameplay.
It's either no interference either way (i.e. all those activities are prohibited in exchange and you can't be blown up… by players at least), or there's full interference both ways.

No bias, just what people are asking for… it's just that they don't really consider what it is they're asking for. If they want to go live outside the EVE universe in their own little bubble, then that's what's left. If not, there's always Sisi or X³.

Quote:
And no, you're wrong. It's your opinion
What is?

Quote:
So what if they don't wanna shoot? If they wanna mine, let them mine. If they wanna market, let them market. Build? Let them ******* build.
No. Why should they be allowed to interfere with other people's gameplay on their own terms, but those other people aren't allowed to interfere on theirs? That is unfairness and bias if there ever was any.

Quote:
And I am qualified to talk about PvP
No. You'd know full well why all those restrictions need to accompany a no-PvP-switch if you were. You don't so you aren't.
Abel Merkabah
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#170 - 2012-08-24 20:39:20 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Anslo wrote:
So it's either carebears can't interfere in ganker game play, and to accept that gankers can interfere with their gameplay.
It's either no interference either way (i.e. all those activities are prohibited in exchange and you can't be blown up… by players at least), or there's full interference both ways.

No bias, just what people are asking for… it's just that they don't really consider what it is they're asking for. If they want to go live outside the EVE universe in their own little bubble, then that's what's left. If not, there's always Sisi or X³.

Quote:
And no, you're wrong. It's your opinion
What is?

Quote:
So what if they don't wanna shoot? If they wanna mine, let them mine. If they wanna market, let them market. Build? Let them ******* build.
No. Why should they be allowed to interfere with other people's gameplay on their own terms, but those other people aren't allowed to interfere on theirs? That is unfairness and bias if there ever was any.

Quote:
And I am qualified to talk about PvP
No. You'd know full well why all those restrictions need to accompany a no-PvP-switch if you were. You don't so you aren't.


Trolled so hard Tippia...

But even if he was not troll, how do you put up with this in almost very thread. You use logic on people that don't understand or care to use logic...Id just get frustrated and quit posting after a while.

Well keep up the good fight...maybe someone will understand reading this and it won't have been in vain.

James315 for CSM 8!
Ictineekey
Sovet-Union
Ferrata Victrix
#171 - 2012-08-24 22:27:53 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
In the issue of PvP vs PvE there needs to be a bit more understanding of why different people enjoy different play styles. I think it has to do with how they experience The Rush. Some call it The PvP shakes, but either way, its caused by adrenaline.

The Rush is a good felling one gets with and after a burst of adrenaline associated with an exciting experience, like PvP combat. Not everyone gets The Rush. Some get no pleasure from adrenaline, and some actually feel bad or sick from it. According to Dr. Drew Pinsky, the difference between these people is genetic. You are born to get The Rush, or you are not. The result is some players will not enjoy PvP and actively seek to avoid it, and no amount of game tweaking will change that, because game tweaking will not change their genes. After all this is a game, people will tend to avoid game activities that make them sick. Instead they do cooperative activities, industry, missions and the like, or just play as solo players.

People who do not get The Rush can also enjoy activities like fishing, a sport that is more popular that any computer game, even WoW. Or puzzle games, or solitaire, or Golf (one of the most popular pastimes on the planet). These players like an activity that occupies the mind, is relaxing, and gives one a gentle feeling of accomplishment as they watch the isk pile up. For them, a certain amount of repetition is not boring, its reassuring and relaxing.

People who avoid PvP space combat are not afraid of losing their stuff, they are trying to avoid exposure to adrenaline. Adrenaline also cases some bad side effects (http://www.ehow.com/about_5038314_effects-adrenaline-rush.htmlf) to the point I'm wondering if games that have non-consensual PvP may need health warnings, or will at some point become regulated.

If part of the game can be made "Adrenaline free" more such people would be retained. (CCP, I'm sure you got statistics on how many people stop playing after their first non-consensual PvP experience.) How can that be done? Well, high sec is already very close.

If you are not in a player corp and stay in high sec all you have to deal with are suicide ganks. An interesting question is if having suicide ganks in the game increase or decrease subs. If they were removed, would it really impact the game as a whole much, or just impact those few players who like to do them?

Also CCP mentioned (at fanfest) the idea of a "Corp lite", a player "corp" that is little more than a chat channel. It cannot join an alliance, or put up a POS, or be in a war, and it pays the NPC corp tax. Players already set these up, maybe we need it formalized into the game for the adrenaline adverse.



Finally - an intelligent person who can express a meaningful opinion without all the hyperbole!! You are a rarity in EVE
Sarah Schneider
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#172 - 2012-08-24 23:12:36 UTC
1. Better tutorial
2. Removal of Spreadsheet in Space™
3. Stop trying to follow mainstream MMOs, Eve has it's own market

"I'd rather have other players get shot by other players than not interacting with others" -CCP Soundwave
Sven Viko VIkolander
In space we are briefly free
#173 - 2012-08-25 02:43:42 UTC
Here's the thing lots of people in this thread ignore: many of the suggestions might bring in new players, but would also A. lose old players, and B. not retain those new players. Many MMOs are dying. In the period of a year or 6 months they rely on massive influxes of players with a new, shiny theme park expansion, one that old players have seen countless times and new players are bored of in a week.

Suggestions like "making eve easier" or "buff highsec [in some such way]" or "decease the value of low/null/wh/sec" fail for that reason. They would get new players--you know, the same carebears that would be off to play the next major MMO release in a month without giving eve another thought whatsoever after that.

The good suggestions in this thread--the ones that would retain old players, bring in new players, and turn those newbies into vets--are the suggestions that build on what makes eve great, and that ain't high sec. My suggestions are: Make low/null/wh much more attractive and versatile while also more accessible (e.g., for the later, make gate camps less feasible). Continue doing what you are doing (bug fixes, ship balances, null sec and pos revisions, etc.) and hurray up...
EvEa Deva
Doomheim
#174 - 2012-08-25 03:49:44 UTC
If they let new accounts div out about 3 million SP right off the bat, that would keep them doing something besides waiting for a skill to train.

That would put them into missions with a decent chance of survival, mining with a decent income, or PvP with a decent frig, or they could wait a month and likely quit.
Leisen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#175 - 2012-08-25 04:16:44 UTC
If you didn't need two accounts to be competitive and self-sufficient.
Sturmwolke
#176 - 2012-08-25 04:46:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:
At any rate, the fundamental point stands: the non-carebear crowd can (and do) easily pick up the slack from the carebear side to maintain the production side of EVE, whereas the opposite isn't the case: the carebears don't stand a chance in hell to pick up the slack on the destruction-side, so as far as being “integral” to the whole process, they're wa-a-ay down the list…


Production in EVE isn't as simple that just about anyone can pick up without running a couple of spreadsheets. The complexity escalates when you go into PI for example, or even Capital productions ... notwitstanding the cost, time and patience needed to accumulate the BPOs/BPCs assets and skill sets. These sort of things will rarely appeal to the non-carebear crowd, either because they cba to do it or they'd rather be spending their time gatecamping or roaming. The real question here, how long can a non-carebear sustain doing all those stuffs? .... and I didn't even touch mining.

The argument assumes that a carebear has zero possibility of becoming a bear. I see them in different shades, rather than pure black or white. The same thing applies to the non-carebear side - some might have a higher tolerance towards the more carebearish tasks. What I was interested in however, were how things work out in the overall equation. Look at EVE now, and don't tell me carebears don't play a role in the equation. They do.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#177 - 2012-08-25 05:06:36 UTC
This game would get more subs if it had.....



Bug ships!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Doomheim
#178 - 2012-08-25 05:41:23 UTC
Eve is the scourge of MMO's. The players are the biggest assholes I have ever met on the internet.

I have never been to fourchan, but I have been to blizzard.
ColdCutz
Frigonometry
#179 - 2012-08-25 05:50:11 UTC
Move the regular Trial to a 21-day period, and the Buddy Trial to 30-day. Obviously since EVE can't go to the predominate Free-to-Play model it's left with hooking new players during the Trial period, and as plenty have pointed out it can take some time to get a real feel for the sandbox. CCP has already begun focusing on the Tutorial system and tool tips, because as I recall their metrics indicated that new players leave fairly early on after being frustrated with the learning curve.
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#180 - 2012-08-25 06:59:43 UTC
ColdCutz wrote:
Move the regular Trial to a 21-day period, and the Buddy Trial to 30-day. Obviously since EVE can't go to the predominate Free-to-Play model it's left with hooking new players during the Trial period, and as plenty have pointed out it can take some time to get a real feel for the sandbox. CCP has already begun focusing on the Tutorial system and tool tips, because as I recall their metrics indicated that new players leave fairly early on after being frustrated with the learning curve.


I doubt that 30-day trial periods are enough to get people hooked on the game. As some have proclaimed, they love the setting, but hate the sandbox, and so I think it is more likely that players that have had a theme park experience is going to want that same theme park experience as they had before. I don't think EVE would see a massive spike in subs unless CCP made the game into more of a theme park which would kill the game.

As for the tutorial, it won't be long until CCP and other game developers are forced to redesign the tutorials for the American audience. Woop! Twisted

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.